| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <cc9566421dedf10b5b7149d093992797540c31e2.camel@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2022 16:32:46 +0800
From: Ying Huang <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: Wei Xu <weixugc@...gle.com>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Tim C Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
Brice Goglin <brice.goglin@...il.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Hesham Almatary <hesham.almatary@...wei.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
Jagdish Gediya <jvgediya@...ux.ibm.com>,
Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 9/9] mm/demotion: Update node_is_toptier to work with
memory tiers
On Wed, 2022-06-08 at 13:58 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K V wrote:
> On 6/8/22 12:56 PM, Ying Huang wrote:
> > On Mon, 2022-06-06 at 14:03 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K V wrote:
> > > On 6/6/22 12:54 PM, Ying Huang wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2022-06-06 at 09:22 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K V wrote:
> > > > > On 6/6/22 8:41 AM, Ying Huang wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, 2022-06-03 at 19:12 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> > > > > > > With memory tiers support we can have memory on NUMA nodes
> > > > > > > in the top tier from which we want to avoid promotion tracking NUMA
> > > > > > > faults. Update node_is_toptier to work with memory tiers. To
> > > > > > > avoid taking locks, a nodemask is maintained for all demotion
> > > > > > > targets. All NUMA nodes are by default top tier nodes and as
> > > > > > > we add new lower memory tiers NUMA nodes get added to the
> > > > > > > demotion targets thereby moving them out of the top tier.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Check the usage of node_is_toptier(),
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - migrate_misplaced_page()
> > > > > > node_is_toptier() is used to check whether migration is a promotion.
> > > > > > We can avoid to use it. Just compare the rank of the nodes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - change_pte_range() and change_huge_pmd()
> > > > > > node_is_toptier() is used to avoid scanning fast memory (DRAM) pages
> > > > > > for promotion. So I think we should change the name to node_is_fast()
> > > > > > as follows,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > static inline bool node_is_fast(int node)
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > return NODE_DATA(node)->mt_rank >= MEMORY_RANK_DRAM;
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > But that gives special meaning to MEMORY_RANK_DRAM. As detailed in other
> > > > > patches, absolute value of rank doesn't carry any meaning. It is only
> > > > > the relative value w.r.t other memory tiers that decide whether it is
> > > > > fast or not. Agreed by default memory tiers get built with
> > > > > MEMORY_RANK_DRAM. But userspace can change the rank value of 'memtier1'
> > > > > Hence to determine a node is consisting of fast memory is essentially
> > > > > figuring out whether node is the top most tier in memory hierarchy and
> > > > > not just the memory tier rank value is >= MEMORY_RANK_DRAM?
> > > >
> > > > In a system with 3 tiers,
> > > >
> > > > HBM 0
> > > > DRAM 1
> > > > PMEM 2
> > > >
> > > > In your implementation, only HBM will be considered fast. But what we
> > > > need is to consider both HBM and DRAM fast. Because we use NUMA
> > > > balancing to promote PMEM pages to DRAM. It's unnecessary to scan HBM
> > > > and DRAM pages for that. And there're no requirements to promote DRAM
> > > > pages to HBM with NUMA balancing.
> > > >
> > > > I can understand that the memory tiers are more dynamic now. For
> > > > requirements of NUMA balancing, we need the lowest memory tier (rank)
> > > > where there's at least one node with CPU. The nodes in it and the
> > > > higher tiers will be considered fast.
> > > >
> > >
> > > is this good (not tested)?
> > > /*
> > > * build the allowed promotion mask. Promotion is allowed
> > > * from higher memory tier to lower memory tier only if
> > > * lower memory tier doesn't include compute. We want to
> > > * skip promotion from a memory tier, if any node which is
> > > * part of that memory tier have CPUs. Once we detect such
> > > * a memory tier, we consider that tier as top tier from
> > > * which promotion is not allowed.
> > > */
> > > list_for_each_entry_reverse(memtier, &memory_tiers, list) {
> > > nodes_and(allowed, node_state[N_CPU], memtier->nodelist);
> > > if (nodes_empty(allowed))
> > > nodes_or(promotion_mask, promotion_mask, allowed);
> > > else
> > > break;
> > > }
> > >
> > > and then
> > >
> > > static inline bool node_is_toptier(int node)
> > > {
> > >
> > > return !node_isset(node, promotion_mask);
> > > }
> > >
> >
> > This should work. But it appears unnatural. So, I don't think we
> > should avoid to add more and more node masks to mitigate the design
> > decision that we cannot access memory tier information directly. All
> > these becomes simple and natural, if we can access memory tier
> > information directly.
> >
>
> how do you derive whether node is toptier details if we have memtier
> details in pgdat?
pgdat -> memory tier -> rank
Then we can compare this rank with the fast memory rank. The fast
memory rank can be calculated dynamically at appropriate places.
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
Powered by blists - more mailing lists